Well the way the photos were made is a bit creepy to me but, looking at them, I don't see that. Just some very nice work. They do not seem voyeuristic at all to me. I think you would have to know the story to read that into the photos. Some in our society work overtime to feign offense and this might be one of those times.

Well the way the photos were made is a bit creepy to me but, looking at them, I don't see that. Just some very nice work. They do not seem voyeuristic at all to me. I think you would have to know the story to read that into the photos. Some in our society work overtime to feign offense and this might be one of those times.

Much of Art falls into this realm. A look too closely at the making of the Art, or the Artist, will often disappoint.

Much of Art falls into this realm. A look to closely at the making of the Art, or the Artist, will often disappoint.

Peter

Hence the beauty of taking things at face value. But it has got to be at the viewer's own idea of value. The moment that the gurus start to inject their take, virgin vision is lost to PR, spin and silk purses with bristles on the inside.

Bob, you are (mostly) right. You are absolutely right that police will arrest you. I do not know about Canada, but here, in "the land of the free," most judges will then let you go.

You see, only about 10 states here have a specific law banning up-skirt photography (as of 2005, at least). There are some judges who specifically said, in a freeing verdict, that women do not have "a reasonable expectation of privacy," even under their skirts, if they are in public. A USA Today article on the subject here.

Whether it's 1 or 10, the laws still exist. More will likely he enacted. More may have been enacted in the intervening 8 years. And, as you note, even if charges are dismissed, arrest is still likely. It's also worth noting that the judges don't seem to generally want to dismiss the charges but do so because they feel they have no other option.

Bob, you are (mostly) right. You are absolutely right that police will arrest you. I do not know about Canada, but here, in "the land of the free," most judges will then let you go.

You see, only about 10 states here have a specific law banning up-skirt photography (as of 2005, at least). There are some judges who specifically said, in a freeing verdict, that women do not have "a reasonable expectation of privacy," even under their skirts, if they are in public. A USA Today article on the subject here.

Expectation or right? Different, very different. If they legally don't have that right then the law is truly an ass (no pun intended, in this case). A charter for violation of the person, then?